Trying out the Cirrus SR22 GTS

[ThinkRate]

Yesterday I morning I had the chance to fly a demo, fully-featured, full-extras Cirrus SR22 GTS at the Icarus Athens AeroExpo, at Tatoi AB (LGTT) for 30 mins.

I thought I'd share this experience.

Here is the photo-story, complete with comments, based on my limited flying experience :O.

Trying out the Cirrus SR22GTS at the Icarus Aero Expo (http://hellasga.com/gallery/v/greg/Greg_CirrusSR22GTS/)

TR
--------------------------------------
ThinkRate! ThinkRate! Don't Think!

[Kengineer-130]

Great pics! Would love a go in a cirrus, sexy little aircraft, did that A/C have the BRS system fitted as well?

[IanSeager]

did that A/C have the BRS system fitted as well?

They all have the BRS system fitted

Ian

[IO540]

Nice pics Greg :ok:

I see you didn't get yourself photographed with the two lovely ladies like Kyp did :)

[ThinkRate]

I see you didn't get yourself photographed with the two lovely ladies like Kyp did :)You mean these ones? http://hellasga.com/gallery/friends/DSC01653ss

Well spotted!!! That was the thing, wasn't it? The ladies weren't there and neither was Kyp... Last I heard he was in Black Forest, Germany... Go figure!

LOL

TR
--------------------------------------
ThinkRate! ThinkRate! Don't Think!

[yawningdog]

What did you think of the Cirrus Perspective? Did the real terrain match the simulated terrain acuratley?

[ThinkRate]

Yes, as far as I could see the terrain (and navdata) elements were very accurate. The only thing I could mention here (which I forgot to mention to the Cirrus pilot) was the fact that the E-TAWS system started yelling at me (terrain! terrain!) on short final.

Was this because the airfield was marked as pure navdata (but no runway etc -see MFD in the pictures) or because I was coming down like a bat out of hell?

TR
--------------------------------------
ThinkRate! ThinkRate! Don't Think!

[DeeCee]

An american friend of mine had a flight recently - he is an owner of an SR22. He said that he found it a little over complicated compared to his own, and that the price was very high for a single engine piston aircraft. If I remember correctly, it sells for around $350,000.

He gave me the brochure - I think I'll have it framed!

[IO540]

$350k for which part? An SR22 with this in is about $540k.

[Fuji Abound]

I think the G1000 is marginally more complicated than the Avidyne, hence the comments from someone transitioning form the Avidyne to Garmin.

I would guess an alpha numeric keypad would marginally simplify the application and increase the speed of engaging a number of the functions.

Despite my own preconceived idea that I would prefer the G1000 before using the Avidyne this has not be born out.

Integrating the autopilot is a far more significant step forward (available with the current version of the G1000). I suspect the go around function may also be a genuine step forward although I have not yet used this function.

Auto throttles will be the next genuine step forward.

[ThinkRate]

$350k for which part? An SR22 with this in is about $540k.

Correct! In fact, the fully-loaded model I flew, looking at the configurator in the Cirrus site, works out at slightly over the $600K mark! I think I'll just frame the pictures of me flying it too...:ouch:

I believe that the SR20GTS (or even the SR20-G3 with some extra goodies added) are a more realistic proposition at between $300 and $370K.

TR
--------------------------------------
ThinkRate! ThinkRate! Don't Think!

[fernytickles]

Am sitting at the computer in the guest lounge at Cirrus HQ in Duluth, reading this, surrounded by Cirrus aeroplanes and merchandise. The folks were talking about the new Garmin screens on the way here - neat to see it in your photos.

[bookworm]

With oil at $140, shouldn't it be a criminal offence to manufacture a 310 hp fixed gear aeroplane? ;)

[IO540]

With oil at $140, shouldn't it be a criminal offence to manufacture a 310 hp fixed gear aeroplane?

No, because the Cirrus salesman says they lose only 2-3kt by having a fixed gear :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: (looking for an emoticon of laughing while rolling all over the floor)

10-20kt is nearer the mark, IMHO.

[ThinkRate]

10-20kt is nearer the mark, IMHO.

I take that as a tongue-in-cheek comment? :)

The SR22 cruise speed at 75% is already at 185kts and the SR20 at 156kts (200hp). Comparing that to the Trinidad (TB20 -250hp max cruise of 163kts), it sounds about right.

I did ask the Cirrus guy though about fixed-gear and water ditching at these high(-er) approach speeds and he (naturally) said that the approved procedure here also is using the BRS system.

The landing gear is part of the overall impact energy absorbing system in order for the BRS system to be effective.

TR
--------------------------------------
ThinkRate! ThinkRate! Don't Think!

[IO540]

Thinkrate, I think the answer lies elsewhere.

Cirrus have a slippery airframe, which I would hope is much better than a TB20.

It is anybody's guess how much extra IAS that alone would give them for the same HP (250) because we don't have a retractable similar airframe to compare, but I would bet it is a good 20kt.

Then they chuck away 10-20kt in those huge wheels sticking out.

They they add 50HP.

It does add up - within the limits of plausibility.

Cirrus will never admit this because their marketing case in the USA hangs on fixed gear being a smart thing.

The only similar airframe I can think of which is retractable is the DA42, which I have flown a couple of times and which does the same speed as the TB20 (140kt) at the same total fuel flow (11GPH) despite having a huge lump of a second engine to drag through the air. OK, the engine efficiency is slightly different and the energy value of the fuel likewise, but physics is physics and in this case we are again looking at a slippery airframe which chucks away a lot of the advantage by the drag of the second engine.

I gather that an SR22 does the same MPG as a TB20, at reasonable (say 65%) cruise settings.

[yawningdog]

...the E-TAWS system started yelling at me (terrain! terrain!) on short final.

I've got a feeling that the terrain warning is not GPS sourced. If you fly towards terrrain in the G2 SR20 that I fly, the screen shows a radar style output, low resolution & very blocky. There's a "terrain inhibit" switch near the key.

[bookworm]

The landing gear is part of the overall impact energy absorbing system in order for the BRS system to be effective.

"Energy absorbing system"? You're right there. ;)

[fernytickles]

With millions of cars, truck, container ships, jets, and all the other aeroplanes the world over, plus all the other oil-based fuel burners I can't think of, would it really make a blind bit of difference to the oil production if Cirrus put their gear up or down?

If designing an aircraft that burns fuel were to be made an offence, where would Cessna, Learjet, Dassault, Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, and all the other manufacturers go? Most of their aircraft burn more fuel in taxi than a Cirrus does in an hour's flight.

That said, there's no harm in everyone trying to reduce their fuel usage, as whichever supermarket advert says, every little bit helps. But in the big picture, I doubt gear up or gear down on a Cirrus will make any dent in the annual oil consumption.

Our pilot when I was in Duluth the other day showed us the newest model (possibly the one you flew ThinkRate? - GTSX with Garmin screens) before we left. A mere $650k, with orders for 160 of them in the last 4months! Thats 160 folk with significantly more money than me :bored:

[bookworm]

I'm just kidding. I do think it would be nicer if Cirrus made a fairly clean aeroplane very clean. Secretly, I'm just embarrassed after asking the Cirrus test pilot where the gear lever was... ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Bookworm

For a single the speed is good - in fact faster than most twins.

It would be a bit quicker with upy downy uc and / or a bit more efficient but here is an interesting equation to which I dont know the answer:

Cost of liftable uc + extra service costs + extra insurance = less or more than cost of fuel saved?

[IO540]

Cost of liftable uc + extra service costs + extra insurance = less or more than cost of fuel saved?

Certainly a fixed gear is cheaper to make. Whether it is much lighter I don't know because it needs massive fibreglass cowlings, with big supporting hardware due to the substantial aerodynamic forces. Plus, it covers the wheels so the brakes cannot be visually checked and traps grass etc, so many schools take them off and take the large (~ 10%) fuel consumption hit.

Service costs are debatable too. Retractable gear does cost more but not significantly so in the great scheme of things. The biggest thing is the need for lubrication, which doesn't go well with UK's "squirt a bit of an aerosol on it" lubrication mentality prevailing in the maintenance business. If you don't lube the aileron/elevator control linkages, eventually the punter will notice and moan about it, but if the gear doesn't come down, and the emergency release fails also (because of poor lubrication) you have a £30,000 landing. My maintenance costs on the landing gear over 6 years = 0.

Extra insurance I am not sure about. I pay £2500 for the TB20 (CPL/IR, 1k hrs, 195k agreed hull value) and would challenge anybody to get below that with a Cirrus, for the same hull value cover. I think this "fixed gear is cheap to insure" was an American marketing drive, which seems to have failed even out there, and never worked in Europe. American insurance rates for Cirruses are actually eye watering.

Cost of fuel saved could OTOH be very tangible. But reducing parasitic drag is a highly desirable thing, because it gives an immediate speed gain, whereas gaining speed through power (fuel flow) is very expensive once you start pushing the 75% cruise speed values. Look at the fuel flow for the quoted TAS of say the Lancair (Cessna) 400. A bit quicker than a TB20, same kind of airframe (passenger space), 2x the fuel flow... No wonder it goes faster! A TB20 at 100% power does ~ 165kt IAS and if you stuck a turbo on it and got it to run at 100% at FL200 you would be looking at ~ 220kt TAS.

[IO540]

Just been reading Garmin's advert for the SV G1000 product, in the US AOPA mag.

They practically tell you, over a couple of pages, to rely on the system in IMC for terrain clearance, and then they put in a one-liner saying it is not for primary reliance for that purpose.

[172driver]

Isn't the fixed u/c on the Cirrus a result of

a) cheaper (and quicker) certification and
b) being an integral part of the BRS ?

I vaguely remember reading an article about this (not a company brochure) some years ago, when Cirrus first came out.

Would certainly look better with wheels up, but hey, if you fly it you don't see them ;) !

[ThinkRate]

172Driver

That's what I gathered from my brief discussion with the Cirrus company pilot as well. Plus:

c) Safer and easier to operate and maintain at PPL level.

TR
---------------------------------
ThinkRate! ThinkRate! Don't Think!

[DeeCee]

IO5040 - yes you are quite correct about the price, I must have had a senior moment. Regarding insurance, I was told that you cannot get insured in the US on the SR22 without an IR. Admittedly, to get the best out of this you really need to be up in the airways. Also, you have to have the ground course first.

[IO540]

IO5040 - yes you are quite correct about the price, I must have had a senior moment. Regarding insurance, I was told that you cannot get insured in the US on the SR22 without an IR.

I am 100.0% certain that is incorrect. Loads of U.S. "rocket ship" owners have only a PPL - they can fly VFR right up to base of Class A which is 18,000 feet, and getting CAS transits out there is generally very easy. A large % of U.S. private pilots have an IR (of the order of 20% - about 20x more than in Europe) but the majority haven't.

Admittedly, to get the best out of this you really need to be up in the airways.

Very true in European airspace.

Also, you have to have the ground course first.

For insurance purposes, yes. American insurers are insisting on various training packages. But legally a normal PPL (UK/JAA or FAA) with a complex/HP signoff is good enough for an SR22.

[Fuji Abound]

I am 100.0% certain that is incorrect. Loads of U.S. "rocket ship" owners have only a PPL - they can fly VFR right up to base of Class A which is 18,000 feet, and getting CAS transits out there is generally very easy. A large % of U.S. private pilots have an IR (of the order of 20% - about 20x more than in Europe) but the majority haven't.

Interesting that at least two rental outfits in the US that I know of insist on an IR for the SR22 but not the SR20. Bizarre.

The SR22 is dead easy to fly - yes it is a quicker then nearly every other single - if you want it to be, and yes, the glass takes a bit of getting use to if you are new to glass and yes - it is slippery, so you need to think about more about slowing it down - but that is about it.

If you are use to a fast(ish) complex single and glass it is a doddle - if you are not the speed and capability of the aircraft could well get you into a whole heap of trouble.

I am not sure the under carriage is that much of an issue. I would be interested to know how much saving there could be in fuel burn but given the economies of scale of "investing" upwards of £300K in an aircraft and saving a few gallons of fuel an hour I doubt it is a factor for most. Moreover, their biggest market is the States by far where, rightly or wrongly, the insurance firms dont like anything other than welded uncarriage and Avgas is half the price.

[IO540]

Interesting that at least two rental outfits in the US that I know of insist on an IR for the SR22OK but that is like some UK flying club insisting that you fly with an instructor every 30 days.

When I used to rent out the TB20, I insisted on an IR too. Not because one needs one to fly a simple thing like a TB20 but to simply filter out the "stopwatch and compass" renters who would likely get lost and bust some French TRA, and leave the plane out there, leaving me to collect it and pay the 5 digit fine.

None of this is a legal requirement though.

I should add that insisting on an IR drastically narrows the customer base - unsuprisingly. Most current IRs own their own plane already. And you Fuji know the result I had with HMRC ;)

IMHO, a retractable gear is a total non-event. With the two separate interlocks, it's extremely hard to land wheels up.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes exactly so and they do use it as a filter.

I also bet if they liked your flying they would excercise their discretion, unless they have been left with none by their insurers.

It would be interesting to know the difference (if any) between the cost of insurance with or without an IR in the States - I will ask the question and let you know the reply.

Gear is a non event - except of course on those types where either the warnings are inadequate, or it doesnt go down having exhausted all the options. The last time that happened to me the designers had cleverly contrived to link the lights to the rheostat so they never illuminated. Fortunately on that occasion the gear proved to be down and locked. :)

I suppose on the Cirrus if it is an integral part of the BPS, which I suspect may be the case, then I guess pulling the chute could be coupled with automatically deploying the u/c - now there is a bit of lateral thinking late in the afternoon. :)

[007helicopter]

For what its worth I personally am completely happy not having a retractable uc on our cirrus from both an operating point of view as well as maintenance, my previous flying in a retractable PA28 I was allways nervous about it after having various technical problems and failures with getting the gear down on 2 seperate occasions.

Also it seems much more experienced pilots than me have had gear up landings so it suits me just fine and does not detract from the performance or economy in my mind but I am sure technically that argument would not stand up.

[IO540]

my previous flying in a retractable PA28 I was allways nervous about it after having various technical problems and failures with getting the gear down on 2 seperate occasions.It is however possible that the Arrow you were flying was 20-30 years old and a victim of UK's "aerosol can" maintenance brigade. That kind of thing does not work on retractable gear - eventually it will give trouble. One can maintain an old fixed gear dog with aerosol cans but RG needs to be lubed properly.

I used to see an old Lance around my field (a real old dog) which had constant gear problems. But it was never looked after. Parked outdoors, and left to rot. I dare say the owner didn't spend any money on it either.

RG is really simple. An 18th century team engine engineer would understand it immediately. And would know exactly where to grease it.

[DeeCee]

IO540 and others - a couple of questions if you don't mind. firstly, what is the difference between a US IR and a UK one. I am assuming they are different from many comments over the years and correct me if I am wrong. Secondly, I have been thinking for some time about going for an IR, having got my IMC a few years ago (not current now), so how much devotion will I need bearing in mind that I have a busy job. I haven't flown so many hours in the last couple of years, but this would change if I could fly in the airways. What would you suggest? Would it be worth it?

[Fuji Abound]

what is the difference between a US IR and a UK one.

Stands back and waits for the fun to begin.

[172driver]

what is the difference between a US IR and a UK one.


Stands back and waits for the fun to begin.

Procures nibbles and drink and waits for the spectacle to commence !

;););)

[IO540]

I think there is a limit to how many people will rise to the bait every time this one comes up.

Not suggesting DeeCee's Q is not genuine; I have sent him/her a PM ref some reading material.

[DeeCee]

IO540 - thanks for the info. Yes, the question was genuine. I was recently told by my club that an American friend of mine with 15,000 hrs and an IR could not fly a 'G' registered aircraft IFR in the UK, and it had to be an 'N' reg.

I am certain that there are a great many excellent IR pilots on both sides of the pond, so the real question is - would an IR that is more straightforward in it's approach be a better incentive for UK pilots to get the invaluable experience and qualification?

From the previous comments it is obvious that this has been aired many times before. I didn't know that.

[20driver]

"It would be interesting to know the difference (if any) between the cost of insurance with or without an IR in the States - I will ask the question and let you know the reply."

30% reduction in premium and higher limits in my case on a TB20. This seems to be typical. Airshares which runs a large Cirrus fractional wants you to have an IR or be working on one for the SR-22. It is difficult to rent anything that is HP or Complex without an IR.

An IR in the States is not that hard to get and acts as a filter. If you can't be bothered or don't have the ability I wouldn't want to rent to you. But hey I don't rent mine to anyone.

20driver

[007helicopter]

It is however possible that the Arrow you were flying was 20-30 years old and a victim of UK's "aerosol can" maintenance brigade. That kind of thing does not work on retractable gear - eventually it will give trouble. One can maintain an old fixed gear dog with aerosol cans but RG needs to be lubed properly.

By the way how do you put the blue box around a quote?

10540 - you are right about the age, not sure about the aerosol can, the culprit was metal fatigue, maybe incorrect lubrication was a factor...

Anyway back to the Cirrus - I still definately prefer fixed undercarriage when you still get great performance and reasonble fuel consumption.

[Fuji Abound]

20driver

Yes, I was told the range is between a 20% and 25% saving on an SR22 with some insurers being unwilling to provide cover which might suggest that welded u/c also finds favour with the insurance business.

I dont think this side of the pond it makes much difference.

Since the insurance business is driven by the claim record I guess that could mean on the whole PPLs this side of the pond are better or are more cautious.

[IO540]

I was recently told by my club that an American friend of mine with 15,000 hrs and an IR could not fly a 'G' registered aircraft IFR in the UK, and it had to be an 'N' reg.

In fact he can do so, even worldwide, but only outside controlled airspace (ref ANO article 26) which makes this concession pretty useless.

He can fly a G-reg VFR worldwide, using his ICAO PPL/CPL/ATP VFR privilege.